I’ve never really thought about this issue, though now that I have, it seems rather significant. Typically, I try to teach grammar during the writing process, but I have not realized how much grammar “instruction” my students are already receiving through MSGC. The idea that “Microsoft gets more ‘teachable moments’ than English teachers do” is striking (455). Secondary English teachers typically have roughly an hour each day to spend working with their students, and because the topics that need to be covered include literature, writing instruction, vocabulary, and more, grammar instruction often receives limited attention.
McGee and Ericsson make some very insightful points, but what stands out to me the most is the seeming invisibility of the grammar checker. On the most recent versions many mistakes, like common spelling errors, are automatically made for the user. The authors also make the point that for many students, when they see the red or green squiggly line they just accept the first corrections without even acknowledging or considering the issue on hand (462). It seems that this technology, like many others, is enabling students and catering to their increasing laziness. One of the great things about technology is that it fosters convenience, but the danger is that dependence on it breeds stupidity.
The other important thing to realize is that MSGC is not may be “constraining the choices of the novice writer” (458). Students often use this technology and think that if they make all the corrections that they are prompted to, then they have a great paper. However, no consideration is given to voice, style or the ideas of the composition. McGee and Ericsson do not hide their contempt for MSGC, yet they show even more disdain for prescriptive grammar and the current traditional rhetoric. Unfortunately, students don’t know any better than to “accept the authority of this smart machine to police their grammar, just as they have heretofore accepted the authority of their smart teachers” (463). I don’t believe that a grammar checker is necessarily pure evil, but I do accept the authors’ charge that it is crucial to be more aware of this technology, that current best practice in writing and grammar is social, and that questioning this technology with students may be an effective teaching strategy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We do need to be more aware of this technology and share with students that technology can be questionable. Teachers can easily be replaced by a computer; the Internet is only a click away and much more fun to surf than listening to a teacher in a classroom. However, I agree that no consideration is given to style, ideas, or voice when a student uses all the computer offers. That is the trend today, instant gratification without any real thought prompting laziness and "breeding stupidity". We need to be creative so we are interesting and useful to our students; so you are right when you suggest using the technology to teach the errors of its ways.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what teachers do after they read this article. Do they go into class the next morning and instruct their students to disable the Grammar Check functionality of WORD? Do they show their students how the program often presents incorrect and/or stilted alternatives? I've heard people (only a few) say that Spell Checker software "breeds stupidity" as well. Yet, the authors of this article say nothing about it, seemingly because Spell Checker software is accurate most of the time and WORD's Grammar Check software isn't. So, what's really at stake here, software utility or grammar totalitarianism? Honestly, I don't think anyone would give a damn about this issue if the software were better, just like no one today cares about Spell Checkers or calculators.
ReplyDelete